KNIGHT v. MURPHY, et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss. Motion granted as to Count XVIII against Nurse Harr and denied as to Count XIX against Nurse Kincaid. Further granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Dismiss . Motion granted as to Counts I and XV (access to courts), Count XVI (excessive force), Counts II and IV (failure to intervene), Counts V, X, XI, and XIV (retaliation), Counts III and XVII (due process), Count XX (failure to train subordinates), Co unts XXI and XXII (conspiracy), and Count XXIII (preclusion to exhaust administrative remedies) and denied as to Counts VI, VIII, and XII (excessive force), Counts VII, IX, and XIII (failure to intervene) and Count XIX (deliberate indifference). Fu rther denied without prejudice as to Count XXIV (mental and emotional injury). Further defendant J. WILLIAMS dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further remanding case back to Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. 66 Report and Recommendation of Judge Lenihan adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 3/28/14. (njt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MELVIN KNIGHT, Plaintiff, V. JOHN R. WALTON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:12cv984 Electronic Filing District Judge David S. Cercone Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan ,_ '-( MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this lt day of March, 2014, after the Plaintiff, Melvin Knight, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66) was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge giving the parties until March 10, 2014, to file written objections thereto, and granting an extension until March 27, 2010, for objections to be received by the Court, and no objections having been filed or received, 1 and upon independent review of the record, and upon consideration ofthe Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in that Report and Recommendation, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Nurse Defendants (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED as to Count XVIII against Nurse Harr and DENIED as to Count XIX against Nurse Kincaid. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED as to Counts I and XV (access to courts); Count XVI (excessive force); Counts II and IV (failure to 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Proposed Objections (ECF No. 68) on March 27, 2010. In his motion, he states that he will not be filing any objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. intervene); Counts V, X, XI, XIV (retaliation); Counts III and XVII (due process); Count XX (failure to train subordinates); Counts XXI and XXII (conspiracy); and Count XXIII (preclusion to exhaust administrative remedies). The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Counts VI, VIII, XII (excessive force); Counts VII, IX, XIII (failure to intervene); and Count XIX (deliberate indifference to physiological needs). The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Count XXIV (mental and emotional injury). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J. Williams is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amendment of the Complaint as to the Counts where the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim is futile and such relief is not granted. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pre-trial proceedings. David Stewart Cercone United States District Judge cc: Honorable Lisa Pupo Lenihan Chief United States Magistrate Judge Melvin Knight KR 9608 SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370 (Via First Class Mail) Thomas P. Pellis, Esquire Jennifer M. Kirschler, Esquire George P. Kachulis, Esquire (Via CMIECF Electronic Mail) 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?